 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
A lot of people are talking about it, it seems significant enough to mention. BossBabyIsAMasterpiece ( talk) 10:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
There's a report on the matter in Variety. I would hope that makes the cut here. -- 2601:646:A101:3D10:8821:F62E:4694:1D18 ( talk) 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone can add content. We all volunteer here. I’m ok with adding a few sentences about it. But why controversial? Why must it be under controversy.
Mike
Allen 13:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- There’s the controversy that I have not seen a single person agree with the use of ai over hiring talented graphic designers
Joopfoop (
talk) 15:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- No one currently making noise about this is in any position to know whether that happened-- that is, whether the filmmakers used AI to generate an image instead of hiring graphic designers. The statement in Variety referred to the "graphics and production design team" and it obviously did have one, since the film is very design-heavy. If you're suggesting that at some point there was a conversation like "We don't have anyone on the team who's capable of drawing this title card image. Maybe we should hire another designer? No, let's just use AI"... anything's possible but it's equally/more likely that an artist on the team wanted to get a certain look and played around with an AI tool to get it. We simply don't know and it's not the business of a WP article to speculate. ← Hob 17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- There’s the controversy that I have not seen a single person agree with the use of ai over hiring talented graphic designers
Joopfoop (
talk) 15:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there's definitely an attempted review bombing on Letterboxd, which is what Variety is reporting on. I suppose the question is whether or not this is
WP:DUE. Of the 19 top critics on Rotten Tomatoes, there's only one negative review (
by Matt Zoller Seitz), and while that review does call out the use of AI
It doesn't quite look like 1977, especially the unfortunate use of AI-generated interstitial and background art, which pretty much screams "tech bro fads of the 21st Century."
), that's not the reason the movie is panned. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)- Since the likes of Variety, Forbes, and IndieWire are writing articles about the situation, I feel it's worth noting. I wrote up a blurb and put it in the Reception section, feel free to read over and revise. TropicAces ( talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)tropicAces
I think it's pretty important to mention that as Jack stands in the studio and the police sirens blare, he is also hearing "Dreamer, here, awake" being spoken by the sceptic/hypnotist. It suggests that Jack may or may not be in reality at that moment, and that he could be still in a hypnotic state that the hypnotist is having trouble bringing him out of. 216.121.177.33 ( talk) 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like your interpretation of the ending. I think the current version is correct.
Mike
Allen 09:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not my interpretation, it is a crucial point that leaves the ending up to audience interpretation. Why mention the sound of the police sirens and not the only other sound present at the end, the rather important dialogue?
- Just think the ending was left ambiguous on purpose and the article should reflect this. We don't know for certain that Jack is back in reality as the article currently reflects.
216.121.177.33 (
talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- update: forgive me. I just rewatched and notice it's Jack saying this to himself, implying he is trying to awaken himself from hypnosis but he's in fact in reality. 216.121.177.33 ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@ MikeAllen I thought the Randi detail was interesting, and sources given at the time of removal ( Special:Diff/1219820418) support the text. Can you please explain your objection in more detail? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
A lot of people are talking about it, it seems significant enough to mention. BossBabyIsAMasterpiece ( talk) 10:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
There's a report on the matter in Variety. I would hope that makes the cut here. -- 2601:646:A101:3D10:8821:F62E:4694:1D18 ( talk) 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone can add content. We all volunteer here. I’m ok with adding a few sentences about it. But why controversial? Why must it be under controversy.
Mike
Allen 13:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- There’s the controversy that I have not seen a single person agree with the use of ai over hiring talented graphic designers
Joopfoop (
talk) 15:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- No one currently making noise about this is in any position to know whether that happened-- that is, whether the filmmakers used AI to generate an image instead of hiring graphic designers. The statement in Variety referred to the "graphics and production design team" and it obviously did have one, since the film is very design-heavy. If you're suggesting that at some point there was a conversation like "We don't have anyone on the team who's capable of drawing this title card image. Maybe we should hire another designer? No, let's just use AI"... anything's possible but it's equally/more likely that an artist on the team wanted to get a certain look and played around with an AI tool to get it. We simply don't know and it's not the business of a WP article to speculate. ← Hob 17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- There’s the controversy that I have not seen a single person agree with the use of ai over hiring talented graphic designers
Joopfoop (
talk) 15:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there's definitely an attempted review bombing on Letterboxd, which is what Variety is reporting on. I suppose the question is whether or not this is
WP:DUE. Of the 19 top critics on Rotten Tomatoes, there's only one negative review (
by Matt Zoller Seitz), and while that review does call out the use of AI
It doesn't quite look like 1977, especially the unfortunate use of AI-generated interstitial and background art, which pretty much screams "tech bro fads of the 21st Century."
), that's not the reason the movie is panned. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)- Since the likes of Variety, Forbes, and IndieWire are writing articles about the situation, I feel it's worth noting. I wrote up a blurb and put it in the Reception section, feel free to read over and revise. TropicAces ( talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)tropicAces
I think it's pretty important to mention that as Jack stands in the studio and the police sirens blare, he is also hearing "Dreamer, here, awake" being spoken by the sceptic/hypnotist. It suggests that Jack may or may not be in reality at that moment, and that he could be still in a hypnotic state that the hypnotist is having trouble bringing him out of. 216.121.177.33 ( talk) 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like your interpretation of the ending. I think the current version is correct.
Mike
Allen 09:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not my interpretation, it is a crucial point that leaves the ending up to audience interpretation. Why mention the sound of the police sirens and not the only other sound present at the end, the rather important dialogue?
- Just think the ending was left ambiguous on purpose and the article should reflect this. We don't know for certain that Jack is back in reality as the article currently reflects.
216.121.177.33 (
talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- update: forgive me. I just rewatched and notice it's Jack saying this to himself, implying he is trying to awaken himself from hypnosis but he's in fact in reality. 216.121.177.33 ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@ MikeAllen I thought the Randi detail was interesting, and sources given at the time of removal ( Special:Diff/1219820418) support the text. Can you please explain your objection in more detail? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)